Lingating v Comelec
12-91 has not become
Facts:
During the first term of Mayor Sulong, an
administrative complaint was filed against him and
several other individuals for Dishonesty,
Falsification of Public Documents, Malversation of
Public Funds and violation RA No. 3019. On
February 4 1992, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Zamboanga Del Sur found him guilty of the charges
and ordered his removal from office. Mayor
Sulong filed a motion for reconsideration and/or
notice of appeal shortly thereafter. The
Sanggunian ordered the complainant in AC No
12-91 to comment.
Pending appeal, then Vice‐Mayor Vicente
Imbing took his oath and assumed the office of
Mayor of Lapuyan on March 3, 1992 pursuant
to Section 68 of the Local Gov't Code which
allows for the execution pending appeal of
administrative decisions. From February 1992 to
August 2001, no comment was ever filed by the
complainant in AC No 12-91 nor has the
Sanggunian resolved Sulong’s MR/Appeal.
In the May 2001 Elections, Lingating and Sulong
both ran for the position of Mayor of Lapuyan. On
May 3, 2001, Lingating file a petition for
disqualification of Sulong on the ground that the
latter is disqualified from running for any elective
local position having been removed from office
during his first term (1988-1991) as a result of an
administrative case (AC No 12-91) pursuant to
Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code.
Respondent Sulong denied that the decision in AC
No 12-91 had ever become final and executory
since up to the filing of the disqualificationcase, no
comment has been filed nor has the appeal been
resolved. After the parties had filed their
memoranda, the case was submitted for resolution.
The COMELEC, however, was unable to render
judgment before the elections of May 14, 2001,
where Sulong was elected and proclaimed Mayor of
Lapuyan.
In a resolution dated August 1, 2001, the COMELEC
declared respondent Cesar B. Sulong disqualified
adhering to section 40(b) of the Local Government
Code. Respondent Sulong filed an MR arguing
that the decision in AC No.
final and executory; that at no time had he been
removed by virtue of the said decision, and that
the issue was moot and academic having been
"overtaken by the local elections of May 11,
1992."
Lingating filed an opposition to the MR contending
that the fact that Sulong was succeeded by Vice
Mayor Imbing was proof that AC No. 12-91 had
indeed become final. Lingating also prayed that he
be installed as Mayor of Lapuyuan in view of
Sulong's disqualification.
The COMELEC First Division denied Lingating’s
motion on the ground that thedisqualification of an
elected candidate does not entitle the candidate
who obtained the second highest number of votes
to occupy the office vacated. Lingating then filed a
motion for reconsideration of this order.
The COMELEC en banc reversed the decision of the
first division, citing Aguinaldo v. COMELEC that
re-election renders an administrative case moot
and academic. It also ruled that respondent Sulong
was not entitled to occupy the office thus vacated.
Lingating contends that the COMELEC en banc
erred in applying the ruling in Aguinaldo vs.
COMELEC. Instead, Lingating argues that the
applicable case is Reyes v. COMELEC where the
court held that an elective local executive officer,
who is removed before the expiration of the term
for which he was elected, isdisqualified from being
a candidate for a local elective position under
Section 40(b) of the LGC. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Sumulong is disqualified to run for
local election
Held:
The filing of motion for reconsideration by Sulong
prevented the decision of Sangguniang
Panlalawigan from becoming final. There is thus no
decision finding Sulong guilty to speak of. Neither
can the succession of the then vice-mayor of
Lapuyan, Vicente Imbing, to the office of mayor be
considered proof that the decision in AC No. 12-91
had become final because it appears to have been
made pursuant to Sec 68 [16] of the Local
Government Code, which makes decisions in
administrative cases immediately executory.

Aguinaldo and Reyes Cases are inapplicable. In

Aguinaldo v COMELEC, the court held that removal
cannot extend beyond the term during which the
alleged misconduct was committed. If a public
official is not removed before his term of office
expires, he can no longer be removed if he is
thereafter re-elected for another term. However,
Aguinaldo is not applicable as at the time the case
was decided, there was no provision similar to
40(b) of the LGC and hence, cannot be given
retroactive effect. Neither is Reyes vs. COMELEC
applicable as AC No. 12-91 remains to this day, not
final. (G.R. No. 153475, November 13, 2002)